This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

'I think we should give away the whole loaf, would at least you let us give away 2/3 of the loaf.'

and

'We shouldn't being giving away the loaf, but if you insist I think we can live with giving away 1/2'

But the liberal argument seeks to gripe about both approaches fungibly.

'Our side isn't liberal, because he only got us 2/3 of a loaf, and besides who are you to talk of loaf responsibility when your last guy just tossing around 1/2 loaves willy-nilly?'

So people respond '**** it, lets stick to a no loaf policy. Loaf coveters hate us anyway.'

Right, which is why we end up with a pretty crappy crop of candidates for the GOP this year, I am led to believe.

To stick with your metaphor, whole loaf policy may be unpopular, but no loaf policy is similarly unpopular. The problem for the GOP, one imagines, is that the DNP has moved pretty close to 1/2 loaf territory, while the GOP has fully embraced no loaf policy.

That's going to do a couple things. That's going to drive off centrist or moderate conservatives from running for President (or at least cause them to pretzel themselves to pull it off), and the serious, honest hardcore conservatives know that their hard conservativism isn't popular in the mainstream choose to keep their political capital in tact instead of burning it in vain.

So you're left with a race that was at times dominated by Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. And won by Mitt Romney by default.

I think Romney is the perfect candidate for the time and he'll make a very good President. Either Direckshun has me on ignore or I've been too coy about this.

Seems like attributes of a 'perfect candidate' would include not repeatedly coming off as an out-of touch elitist tool. Like it or not (and I often don't), a candidate has to be likable, and people don't like candidate who seems like a douchebag. Bottom line is that the electoral college map looks terrible for him, the national polls are getting worse, and he's going to lose. Perfect candidates aren't supposed to lose.

__________________

Quote:

Reporter: "I guess the question is: Why should Americans trust you when you accuse the information they receive as being fake, when you're providing information that is not accurate?"

TRUMP: "Well, I was given that information. I was, actually, I've seen that information around.

I oppose Romney because he advocates for curbing costs of Medicare. It's not that curbing costs of Medicare is a bad idea, it's just that I know (or, I think I know) what he really wants is to get rid of Medicare altogether. And with Medicare gone, the conservatives will then be able to move to dismantling social security. And when that's gone, they will move to getting rid of temporary unemployment insurance, the Department of Agriculture, the income tax, the 14th Amendment, and nominate judges who completely obliterate commerce clause jurisprudence.

With all that gone, we can then return to market-based solutions for everything, including wages, labor determinations, and possibly reintroduce slavery.

It's not that I oppose Romney for curbing costs to Medicare. It's that I oppose Romney because it will lead to slavery.

Difference being, Romney's never said he wants Medicare gone, Social Security gone, or a return of slavery.

OTOH, Obama has, with his very own lips, gums, and vibrating vocal cords, stated that these compromises 'pave the way' to the 'desired end result'

Public option paves the way to single payer, paving the way to universal health care and government provided care as a right.

Environmental restrictions pave the way to cap and trade, paving the way to coal, nuclear and fossil fuels becoming so expensive that government programs can replace them with renewables.

Government intrusion into healthcare paves the way into a shared responsibility for healthy citizens, paving the way for governmental guidance of diet and exercise habits.

These are Obama enunciated rationales, not my personal fever dream concoctions. But again, you know this but prefer to mischaracterize and lie for your little precious patch of turf.

What was the conservative alternative for health care reform? It was the Heritage Fund's policy, adopted by Romney. What did it become? Punitive damage caps?

I don't know what it is because it's a lot of different ideas from a lot of different people. That's what happens when your party has absolutely no ability to even propose legislation due to the small size of it's minorities in both houses of Congress. What I do know is that there were almost no Republicans saying that there was no need for reform. Newt Gingrich wrote a couple of books in which he describes his ideas.

I'm probably closer to the guy you criticize than most GOPers. I agree with mandates as a central part of a solution, but I still don't support Obamacare for at least 3 reasons.*

1) Obamacare does almost nothing to address the biggest problem in our health care system: out of control cost inflation. It provides the goodies (universal coverage, pre-existing condition coverage, coverage of kids to age 26, etc.) and leaves the tough part for later (controlling costs). I think we need to either come up with a comprehensive reform that does both at once or we need to lead with the tougher, more important reform.

3) And I *don't* trust democrats on this issue. I believe that by leaving the cost control piece out of their reform, they're setting it up to fail at which point political pressure will mount for further government action allowing them to reach for the brass ring of single payer.

__________________
* BTW, I think it's overly simplistic to say that just because some elements of a Heritage healthcare reform idea were used that Obamacare is essentially something that the GOP once supported. There are a lot of details beyond the big pieces like mandates to consider. I've described some of that above.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Right, which is why we end up with a pretty crappy crop of candidates for the GOP this year, I am led to believe.

To stick with your metaphor, whole loaf policy may be unpopular, but no loaf policy is similarly unpopular. The problem for the GOP, one imagines, is that the DNP has moved pretty close to 1/2 loaf territory, while the GOP has fully embraced no loaf policy.

That's going to do a couple things. That's going to drive off centrist or moderate conservatives from running for President (or at least cause them to pretzel themselves to pull it off), and the serious, honest hardcore conservatives know that their hard conservativism isn't popular in the mainstream choose to keep their political capital in tact instead of burning it in vain.

So you're left with a race that was at times dominated by Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. And won by Mitt Romney by default.

Maybe, just maybe, if the whole loafers didn't make the argument that '1/2 loaf is just as evil as no loaf' when the 'RWNJ' compromises, then 'why are you bitching about 2/3 loaf when your guy tossed around 1/2 loaves like they were pennies' when their guy compromises. And maybe they could ascertain why all those people in flyover country are so mad about 2/3 loaf beyond 'well, they must be racists, only possible explanation.' Maybe the discussion would be different.

And I submit that, when people are honest with themselves, there's a STRONG majority who concede 1/3-3/5 of a loaf is about as far was we should be going. They just get wrapped up in ancillary issues and identity politics and stuff those painful admissions down down down.

I love this. If that was the Republican compromise alternative, then what other reason is the Democratic acceptance of the compromise alternative now an anti-conservative proposal accept that the name of the supporting party has been switched? It went from "Here's an acceptable compromise" to "Oh, now that you took the compromise, we can call it an evil, anti-American piece of legislation that needs to be opposed/overturned/vilified."

What other reason besides partisan lines is the cause for this? It was tried and found not workable? Absolutely not.

As I mentioned in my last post, Obamacare was not lifted directly from the Heritage archives. It uses some of the same elements, but it's simplistic and no doubt wrong to conclude that they're essentially the same.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

By throwing he comment in bold out there, you confirmed that you are a retard.

By throwing he comment in bold out there, you confirmed that you are so eager to label those who don't like obama as racist, ignorant, or both that you fail to consider there may be a source behind the comment.

__________________
''Though a quarrel in the streets is a thing to be hated, the energies displayed in it are fine; the commonest man shows a grace in his quarrel.''

Seems like attributes of a 'perfect candidate' would include not repeatedly coming off as an out-of touch elitist tool. Like it or not (and I often don't), a candidate has to be likable, and people don't like candidate who seems like a douchebag. Bottom line is that the electoral college map looks terrible for him, the national polls are getting worse, and he's going to lose. Perfect candidates aren't supposed to lose.

I find him extremely likable. He's going to be a very successful president, but part of that will be the contrast with the guy he followed.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton